Lenander 2014.
| Methods | Randomised trial | |
| Participants | 209 participants with drug‐related problems (intervention 107: control 102) Primary care centre Stockholm, Sweden Year of study: September 2004 to not stated. |
|
| Interventions | Intervention group received a medication review performed by a certified geriatrics pharmacist, involving a standardised semi‐structured questionnaire that allowed patient interaction. Computerised patient records were checked for prescriptions, drug indications, and plans for evaluation. Drugs and dosages were evaluated to correlate with renal function, good practice and the drug formulary. A patient‐centred technique was used, focusing on the patients’ answers to assess understanding of and concordance with drug treatment. The patients were also asked about prescribers other than their GP, and use of non‐prescription and herbal drugs. Concluding pharmaceutical advice was given to patients and entered into the computerised patient record. Duration: single session |
|
| Outcomes | Total drug‐related problems Number of drugs Healthcare use: hospitalisations |
|
| Notes | Funding source: The trial was funded by Stockholm County Council, the Stockholm Drug and Therapeutics Committee, and Apoteket AB Conflict of interest: None stated |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Unclear how randomisation occurred |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Seems to have happened before any non‐standardised patient contact (a letter) |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | No interaction with pharmacist in control group |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | Data were analysed by an independent certified geriatrics pharmacist, blinded to patient group allocation |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Between group attrition < 10%. however, high attrition (>30%) overall |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | None |